>42g of protein per canHow?
>>77253722I think most cans are 2 or so servings so I'm guessing it's a 3 serving can
>>77253722>Be meat>Be almost 1/3rd proteinTruly, a mystery.
>>77253722>65g can has 13g protein>85g can has 16g protein>127g can has 27g protein>198g can has 42g proteinYeah that's how proportional constants work, dipshit.
>>77253750You clearly don't know how to do math
>>77253765Please explain.
>>77253767Why should he? It's already clear
>>77253773Clear like the piss I spray into your dad’s mouth on Fridays
>>77253786Don't over hydrate yourself, bro
>>7725375013/65 = 0.242/198 = 0.2121Those arent the same number bro. If it was truly proportional every single can would give you the exact same ratio and they dont. Your own data exposes you. The R squared being close to 1 just means its a good LINEAR fit not that the relationship is proportional those are literally two different things they teach in like 8th grade math. You even posted the regression line yourself with a non zero intercept and still called it a proportional constant which is genuinely impressive levels of wrongness. Next time you want to call someone a dipshit maybe make sure you actually understand what youre looking at first.
>>77253851>Those aren't the same number bro>R^2 = 0.997Are you fucking retarded or are you pretending to be retarded for bait?>with a non zero interceptNow I know you're pretending to be retarded, because there's no way you don't already know about the legal regulations regarding the amount of protein listed on food labels. Good bait, you got me.
>>77254033dude the intercept is so small it basically passes through the origin anywayrounding to the nearest gram on the label literally explains your 13/65 thing its a federal requirement0.997 r squared and you still think you found a gotcha lmao come on man
>>77254038good bait, you got me.
